RFP - FA489722R00010002 SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section L: Changes POCs; changed dates for declaration of intent to propose, date for Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

receiving DODSafe link, and proposal due date. Changed AS9110 requirement to allow for ISO9001 or AS9100 with plan to become AS9110 certified within 12 months (See B.3.).

Section M: Changed the training instructor/manager position to include AFSC 2A3X3 with qualifications/experience specified under "****" .

Clarified language regarding cost realism in Part F.

PWS: Added more specific language regarding EFB requirements in PWS 3.2.1.5.2.1. Added requirement for AS9110 qualification within 12 months of contract award to paragraph 4.

Q&A 39 - 49 posted.

Posted updated CBA attachments for specific positions: Attachment 10a - MOU ART 23.pdf; Attachment 10b - MOU 10-2021 ART 23 PKL QCI.

pdf.

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Date 03 Mar 2022 18 Mar 2022

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

L-900. Proposal Requirements

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror's proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission.

Offerors shall submit only one proposal for this RFP as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by the office listed at the end of this paragraph, no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP. However, offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to submit Volume III by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

An optional site visit will be conducted on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 10:00 AM Mountain Time. All questions must be submitted by Thursday, 3 February 2022, 5:00 PM Mountain Time.

B. Communications: Electronic proposals shall be transmitted via DOD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) https://safe.apps.mil (FAR 52.215-1(c)(1)). Proposals will not be accepted via any other medium.

In order to submit a proposal, Offerors must notify the POCs listed below no later than 18 February 2022 of their intent to propose. The notification email shall include the name and email address(s) of the Offeror representative submitting the proposal. On 21 February 2022, the Government will send a 'drop-off request' through DoD SAFE to the Offeror email provided. This request will provide the link required to submit proposals. It is the Offeror's responsibility to confirm receipt once proposals are submitted.

FA489722R00010002

Intent notifications due: 18 February 2022 Drop-off request sent: 21 February 2022 Proposals due: 28 February 2022 at 3:00 MST

Persons of Contact:

John Neal, john.neal.12@us.af.mil Kevin Kirkendall, kevin.kirkendall.3@us.af.mil

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in five separate volumes as set forth below:

PAGE NUMBER

VOLUME LIMITS OF COPIES DESCRIPTION

I N/A* 1 Completed RFP (Voluntary Protection Program Information) II N/A* 1 Written Technical Proposal III N/A* 1 Past Performance IV N/A* 1 Small Business Participation Submission V N/A* 1 Cost/Price Proposal

* Page limits are not specified but all documents must be fully searchable .PDF or .DOC files.

1. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror's name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2" X 11," excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11" x 17." Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings, color presentations are not desired or required.

3. There is no page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, but offerors are strongly encouraged to be brief. The page limitation for Volume IV, Small Business Participation Submission, is 3 pages. The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

4. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

5. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

6. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CUI

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

2. Voluntary Protection Plan: Air Force Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirements are applicable to this acquisition as work on an Air Force installation will be required by contractor employees working 1,000 hours or more in any calendar quarter and the employees are not directly supervised by the Air Force installation. As part of Volume I, for each of the past three (3) calendar years immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued (i.e., calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020), submit your Total Case Incidence Rates (TCIR) and Day Away, Restricted, and or Transfer Case Rates (DART) for the standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) code or North American Industrial Classification Systems (NAICS) code for the applicable industry as identified on the face page of this solicitation. If TCIR/DART rates are not maintained, submit comparable rates by submitting a document with the same information. This VPP information shall be no more three (3) pages. Note: This VPP information pertains to the offeror. If an unpopulated joint venture is formed (a joint venture in which the employees are employed by the joint venture partners and not the joint venture itself), each joint venture partner must submit these rates. Any proposed subcontractor with employees working 1,000 or more hours in any calendar quarter on an Air Force installation whose subcontractor employees are not directly supervised by the Air Force installation must submit these rates as well. For information on TCIR /DART rates, visit the following VPP site: https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/index.html.

3. AS9110 Certification: Submission of the Prime Offeror's AS9110 certification is required to be eligible for award. If the offeror does not meet this prerequisite, the Government will not evaluate the proposal. For Joint Ventures or teaming agreements, at least one company must be certified.

4. Cross Reference Matrix: The offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix at RFP Attachment 8 indicating where in its proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document (Statement of Objectives (SOO), Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), Purchase Description (PD), etc.), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help an offeror ensure it has responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix. Additionally, to the extent the matrix discloses details as to the manner by which the Government intends to evaluate the offeror's proposals for award, Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's technical proposal.

2. Mission Essential Services:

All the positions in the PWS are considered mission essential services. A written plan must be submitted IAW

DFARS 252.237-7024.

3. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror's proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS.

Subfactor One: Recruitment/Retention : Contractor must provide contacts specified in Section M under subfactor one. It also requires the offeror to identify its methodology to meet the unique staffing and manning requirements of this contract, including attracting and retaining qualified personnel for hard-to-fill positions.

Subfactor Two: Quality Management: This subfactor demonstrates the offeror's plan to ensure quality services are offered under this contract over the stated period of performance, in accordance with the requirements established in the PWS and all applicable laws and regulations.

Subfactor Three: Prerequisite Documentation: This subfactor demonstrates the offerors familiarity and ability to complete documentation to an acceptable level. The documentation is of a type required to be submitted and approved prior to commencing performance. These documents are specified in Section M.

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the "FACTS Sheet" (See RFP Attachment 4) and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will hire any of the personnel identified under technical subfactor one or employ more than 40% of the personnel for the maintenance AFSCs.

2. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume labeled "Volume III - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and critical subcontractor (nature of work and percentage of overall work). Summary page information must clearly communicate that proposed critical subcontractor(s) meet the definition of a critical subcontractor established above. Efforts submitted for proposed critical subcontractors not meeting the established definition will not be evaluated. Each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate FACTS Sheet for (a maximum of) four (4) active or completed contracts (with at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP, that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds four (4), each offeror/joint venture member shall address up to four (4) of their most recent and relevant contracts. For each critical subcontractor included in the offeror's proposal, a FACTS Sheet for (up to) four (4) of their most recent and relevant contracts shall also be included. The offeror's/joint venture member's or critical subcontractor's present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror's past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The FACTS Sheet shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

3. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the FACTS Sheet (Attachment 4) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) and/or critical subcontractors authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Subcontractor /Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 7). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) and/or critical subcontractors identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume III.

4. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the four (4) contracts submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the FACTS Sheet concerning the offeror's/joint venture member's and critical subcontractor's compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if these clauses are or were contained in the contract.

(Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL businesses, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor's policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

5. FACTS Sheet: The offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, if applicable, shall focus its FACTS Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The FACTS Sheet responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. The answering space on the FACTS Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 1/2 x 11 inch pages (i.e., no more than six (6) pages).

Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs). At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs:

(a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the FACTS Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the FACTS Sheet, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale /circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

6. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 3) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).

The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 3) to each of the offeror's joint venture member's and/or critical subcontractors' (i.e., each entity's) Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each FACTS Sheet. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (see Attachment 5) shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs must submit their completed Present /Past Performance Questionnaire electronically. Follow the procedures outlined in paragraph I.B.

Communications above, and email to: john.neal.12@us.af.mil; kevin.kirkendall.3@us.af.mil.

John Neal, Contract Specialist, 208-828-3117 Kevin Kirkendall, Contracting Officer, 208-828-3116

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

7. Client Authorization Letter: In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting /authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 6). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror's Present/Past Performance submission for the Government's use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

8. Follow-up Discussions: The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the FACTS Sheets or in the offeror's Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a) (2)(ii), the Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources, other than those listed within the FACTS Sheets.

9. RFP Attachment Legend: RFP Attachments 3 (Past Performance Questionnaire) and 4 (FACTS Sheet) must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CUI

E. Volume IV, Small Business Participation Submission

1. General: The Small Business Participation Submission is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The offeror/joint venture member and each proposed critical subcontractor shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business Participation Submission is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business Participation Submission.

2. Format and Specific Content: The offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Submission for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume IV - Small Business Participation Submission". The Small Business Participation Submission shall address each of the following elements in the proposed performance of this resultant contract:

The extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and, The description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform; and, The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars. If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, provide rationale for such. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Rather, adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals. Additionally, if the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor is a small business concern, it should include the work it will be performing when calculating the goals for your Small Business Concern Participation Submission information.

F. Volume V, Price

1. This part shall contain a completed Attachment 2.

2. Insert proposed unit prices and totals for each tab (option years) in Attachment 2 for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Please note that the Unit Prices in the following CLINs will be provided by the Government, and will be used for evaluation purposes only: 0002, 0003, 0005, 0006, 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 3002, 3003, 3005, 3006, 4002, 4003, 4005, and 4006. The extended amount must equal the unit price multiplied by the number of units (do not back into the Unit Price by dividing an Extended Amount by the Units). It is imperative that mathematical calculations are correct; particular care should be taken to ensure the amounts match when using the EXCEL program and the rounding of figures, limited to two decimal places.

3. Complete all necessary fill-ins. Use care to ensure no price data of any kind is included in any other part of the proposal.

4. Proposals which omit escalation using the base year as the starting point (to account for increased labor costs) shall be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated.

5. For the "Any other corporate positions" line on the provided spreadsheet, the proposal shall identify the titles and job description(s) for any additional positions necessary to support this effort other than the contract manager position required by PWS 1.2. If more than one position, the cost per position must be broken out in the proposal.

NOTE: The government is not responsible for matching positions in the PWS with positions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation Submission, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Utilization, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Voluntary Protection Plan: The submitted TCIR/DART rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years (i.e., calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020) immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific SIC or NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation (https://www.

bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm). Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractor to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror's proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor One - Recruitment/Retention: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides the following:

(a) A comprehensive written plan to recruit and retain qualified personnel for all positions described in the PWS, giving due attention to the relative scarcity of qualified F-15 pilot-instructors and WSO instructors, as well as to the position qualifications for other instructor personnel described in the PWS. Details must be provided regarding recruitment and retention techniques, including specifics on the offerors' method(s) for retaining incumbent personnel (if applicable).

(b) In addition, submissions must identify the following number(s) of qualified contacts (made within sixty days prior to proposal submission) for the following positions, each of which is identified by AFSC in the PWS, Table 7-2, Appendix 1:

Position AFSC Requires number of contacts Instructor-Pilot 11F3G 3* Instructor-WSO** 12F3F 2* Simulator/Platform Instructor 11F3G/12F3F 3 Training Instructor/Manager*** 2A6X1 2

* At least one must be an FWIC graduate ** Must be qualified with respect to F-15E or F-15SG *** Must be qualified with respect to any 4th-generation fighter aircraft, to include flight-line experience and engine run experience.

For the purpose of this sub-factor, a "qualified contact" is an individual (1) who is at the time of proposal submission fully qualified to perform the duties set forth for each position as described in the PWS, and (2) who has been contacted by the offeror within the past sixty (60) days. Identification of each qualified contact shall be made as follows:

Instructor-Pilot: Provision of the individual's most recent AF Form 8, or equivalent document.

Instructor-WSO: Provision of the individual's most recent AF Form 8, or equivalent document.

Simulator/Platform Instructor Provision of the individual's most recent AF Form 8, or equivalent document.

Training Instructor/Manager Provision of the individual's DD214 (or equivalent) along with training records and EPR/OPR. Alternatively, qualifications may be evidenced by official training records, teaching certificates or formal training certifications sufficient to prove the individual has the requisite skills and experience to fill the position.

Subfactor Two - Quality Management: This sub-factor is met when the offeror's Quality Control Plan (QCP) meets the following: (1) all the requirements for the QCP specified in the PWS; (2) all applicable AFIs in the PWS, (3) the Service Delivery Summary as listed in the PWS, and (4) all applicable OSHA requirements.

Subfactor Three - Prerequisite Documentation: This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides draft Flight Operation Procedures (FOPs) and Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) and a Training Plan. The FOPs and GOPs must meet the requirements of DCMA Instruction 8210.1C, Change 1 and DFARS 252.228-7001. The Training Plan must meet all requirements specified in PWS paragraphs 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.1.1, 2.1.3.1.2, and 2.1.3.2 including due consideration for the number of hours spent by qualified personnel providing classroom instruction as well as curriculum development. Additionally, each offeror will need to describe its plan for integrating its instructor personnel with the proximate USAF AMXS instructor cadre in the Maintenance Training Section (MTS) to provide instruction to USAF, RSAF and other personnel as required in paragraph

2.1.3 of the PWS. NOTE: the training plan to meet the PWS requirements is separate from the training plan required by DCMA 8210.1C, Change 1 and two separate submissions is required.

2. Mission Essential Services: Offerors shall submit a written plan IAW DFARS 252.237-7024. This shall be rated as acceptable/unacceptable.

3. Technical Rating:

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable" rating in every subfactor.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror's/joint venture members' ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors' involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will hire any of the personnel identified under Technical Subfactor One or employ more than 40% of the personnel for the maintenance AFSCs.. The Government will evaluate the offeror's/joint venture members' and if applicable, the critical subcontractors' demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor's performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror's past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror's Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government's Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror's Volume III of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have involved flight operations for fourth generation fighter aircraft AND maintenance on fighter or fixed-wing attack aircraft in support of sortie generation.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have involved flight operations for fourth generation fighter aircraft OR maintenance on fourth generation fighter or fixed-wing attack aircraft in support of sortie generation.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have involved flight operations AND maintenance on some other fixed-wing military air frame in support of sortie generation.

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of service. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, PEACE CARVIN V Flight Operations and Maintenance Support Training. They are as follows:

Number of sorties/hours flown by contractor operations personnel or the number of sorties supported by maintenance personnel: (Current effort - 2700 sorties/3300 hours) Number of aircraft supported (Current effort - 20 aircraft) Number of personnel employed to support the contracting effort (159)

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral". A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror's/joint venture members' (and critical subcontractor's, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts.

That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor's policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror's Small Business Participation Submission shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Submission addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) Goals for the business type expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars must be provided for each business type. The goals should be realistic and any goal of 0% should provide adequate justification.

For informational purposes, the DoD FY 2021 goals are as follows:

NAICS: 488190

Business Size Sub Small Business 32.25% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) 3% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%

2. Small Business Utilization Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's approach for meeting the Government's Small Business Program objectives. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

F. Cost/Price Factor

The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. Separately priced lines items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. The Government will evaluate all option CLINs (FAR 52.217-5), to include the FAR 52.217-8 option CLINs. This does not obligate the Government to exercise any options during performance of the contract.

The government will evaluate offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP).